- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:37:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11168
Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2010-10-31 23:37:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Remove the reference to the WhatWG subversion server. There is a reference to
> the W3C CVS server, which is sufficient. In addition, the material at the
> WhatWG subversion server differs from the material at the W3C server. Such
> differences generate confusion.
The W3C version only includes the final .html files, as far as I can tell, not
the source file used to generate them. In the spirit of openness, it's better
to provide pointers to all material used to create the spec, not just the final
product. Also, one time I suggested a change (bug 10331) and Ian said he
wasn't willing to do it, but was willing to accept a patch. Writing a patch
that he can accept is only possible using the source file.
> Remove the commit-watchers-list for the WhatWG. We already have way for people
> to follow commits in the W3C space. In addition, the WhatWG work is not
> identical to the W3C's work, and commits in the WhatWG space may generate
> confusion about what is in the W3C HTML5 spec.
On the other hand, the diffs of the source files are typically easier to read,
since the scripts used to generate the final HTML pages add a bunch of noise.
There are probably some examples where the source diffs are much easier to
read, although I didn't look.
> Remove the reference to the annotated differences document at html5.org, which
> again is to an external web server outside of the control of W3C.
There is no W3C policy or guideline that I know of that suggests it's a bad
idea to have informative content in drafts referencing sites outside of the
W3C's control. This is not a reason by itself to remove anything. Of course,
possibly-unstable links in the final Recommendation could be problematic, but
we're nowhere near that point -- the link can just be removed from the next
draft if it breaks.
> Remove the reference to subversion access to WhatWG documents. Not pertinent,
> not useful for those accessing the W3C documents.
As noted, this contains the source files, so it is pertinent. Plus, some
people (like me) are familiar with Subversion but not CVS, so would prefer
Subversion if given the choice.
> Remove the paragraph mentioning work is also being done at the WhatWG. This is
> a spec, not a marketing brochure. People don't need to have the "convergence"
> between the two groups embedded in a tech spec.
To the contrary, omitting mention of the WHATWG would be deceptive. The fact
that HTML5 is the joint product of two different organizations is of
considerable importance to anyone who wants to contribute to the spec. Changes
to the spec do occur based on discussions in the WHATWG, and anyone who wants
to keep on top of the spec should at least be aware of that fact, even if they
don't actually want to subscribe to the whatwg list or join its IRC channel
(which they might).
The W3C's copy of HTML5 is independent and should not depend on or normatively
reference the WHATWG version. However, to pretend that the WHATWG doesn't
exist is a disservice to the readers of the W3C spec. While the existence of
two spec versions undoubtedly creates confusion, that confusion will only be
amplified if they don't acknowledge each other's existence -- given that they
do both exist regardless of what the W3C version says.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 31 October 2010 23:37:47 UTC